The Government, The Internet, and A Little Revolution...

This came via the Treespotter via the Hammer of Truth.

Has technology changed the face of revolution?

SBY (AKA Save Bakrie, Yudhoyono) & Development...

I have not posted much lately. This has nothing to do with writer's block or similar ills that plague us all every now and then. Rather, it was a conscious decision to hide behind being "too busy" at work to blog. The truth though is more along the lines of getting a little bored with bagging SBY all the time. But, some things that the president says really are worth commenting on and this is one of them.

It seems that Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has had a "No Shit, Sherlock" moment. This little moment came when the president was signing-off on an accelerated economic (or is that eco-comic?) development plan at the State Palace in Bogor. It appears that SBY (Save Bakrie, Yudhoyono) believes development in Indonesia has failed during his tenure because of five illnesses. The five illnesses is a pretty convenient number as it fits the same basic framework as Pancasila or the five basic principles that the modern state of Indonesia is founded upon.

What Stupid Bloody Yudhoyono is doing here is passing the buck. He is the classic "buck-passer". He is the consummate "I am the president, so it is someone else's fault" type of guy. Simply, why take responsibility when you think that Teflon is a genetic trait?

The five illnesses plaguing Indonesia are:

1. an inefficient bureaucracy (dealt with by black-balling the best performing, and reforming, Minister he had and forcing her to a post at the World Bank);
2. regional governments (to be dealt with by removing direct elections in favour of central government appointments);
3. investors who promise the world and then do not deliver (hmmm, didn't SBY come to the presidency promising the Indonesian people the world and delivering it to his family and friends?);
4. a flawed legal system (the system is not the problem, the enforcement within the system is the problem, as is an inefficient and hands-off president who allows the institutions of state tasked with combating corruption to be undermined by special interests); and
5. unhealthy political interests (what the president really means here is that he has been held hostage by the short and curlys by these very special interests, and happily so).

It seems like the events in Tunisia inspired events in Egypt which have further inspired others in the Middle East to express their collective desires for change. I wonder how long it is until the Indonesian people feel it is time to express their collective displeasure at a government that promises much and delivers nought? Maybe it is time that the masses returned to the street with a view to re-invigorating reformasi and finishing that which was started in 1998?

Ho hum...

Sherlock out!

"Reform Unplugged"

A shout out to Treespotter who has made a post already using this title. I have been toying with the idea of writing a piece on how the events in Egypt over the [almost] past three weeks is perhaps a lesson that Indonesians could heed, some Indonesians more than others. Conversely, the reform that Egyptians so overwhelmingly crave could do with a shot of reality, particularly regarding the pace of managed or guided reforms. A managed reformasi process is something that all Indonesians are all too familiar with. On that note, anyone looking for an interesting read on the similarities, head over to Jakartass.

The other reason for the 'unplugged' title is that I have been chilling out to a couple of unplugged albums; Bob Dylan and Neil Young. And, the lack of creativity that I have suggested that something 'unplugged' would make a good blog post.

Hosni Mubarak was a tyrant, a dictator, that has supposedly amassed a fortune somewhere in the vicinity of USD 40 to USD 70 billion over the course of almost 30 years of power. He has done this at the expense of his people. It is little wonder that critical mass was reached and protests began. I have always wondered why tyrants and dictators never come to realise that if they shared just a little they would always get a few more years at the helm. To be honest, all these people could have used a few pep sessions with Singapore's elder statesman Lee Kuan Yew on how to properly stage manage democracy, or at least the semblances of it.

But, I digress.

The reality for most Egyptians, as it was for most Indonesians in 1998, is where to next? The King is dead, sort of. He will move, most probably out of Egypt and retire with his ill-gotten billions. Some will be returned as a small gesture. But, for those ordinary Egyptians struggling on, or below, the poverty line the cold, hard reality is that change or reform will be slow. If Egyptians want to get a good idea of what not to do, at least with respect to pace, then they should look to Indonesia. In the more than twelve years since Soeharto stepped aside after violent street protests and handing the reins of power to his deputy, much has changed and much has stayed the same.

The positives are that Indonesians enjoy greater freedoms of sorts, and except if you are an Ahmadi [minority rights, not!], including the freedoms of speech and expression. Indonesians have enjoyed an opening of the political process to a degree and experienced, by most accounts, a free and fair presidential election. Sadly, this has seen a succession of presidents elected who have been unable to deliver on the promise of the 1998 protest movement.

Gus Dur, despite his good and honourable intentions was a populist at heart who did not really have the heart to make the tough decisions. Megawati, well, "nuff" said. And, the incumbent, SBY. So much promise and so little progress. To Egypt, SBY shows how hard it is to remove entrenched special interests and how those interests continue to hold sway over how Indonesia's new-found democracy operates.

Unfortunately, the coming of democracy has  not seen a reduction in corruption levels or any significant improvement in the bureaucracy that channels that corruption. There is nothing like statistics to hide poverty or the careful manipulation of numbers to lower the threshold in order to hide those living on less than USD 2 per day. What Egypt has to look forward to is entrenched interests who pull their collective heads in in the after math of the killing of the king and biding their time.

For all the steps forward that Indonesia took in the post-1998 period with the establishment of a corruption eradication commission and the pursuit of those special interests it was only a matter of time before the special interests fought back. It appears a compliant [and complicit] president was the only trigger needed to convince those special interests that the ball was in their court.

Egypt does not want reform. Egypt needs complete and fundamental changes to the way the business of democracy is done. Ordinary Egyptians do not want to leave this important business to those schooled in the ways of the old master, Mubarak. Let Indonesians tell you how that turns out. The reality that Indonesians now understand is that letting those schooled in the ways of the previous master means that the practices remain entrenched and the mechanisms and skills required are absent for real change to occur. Skip a generation, the protests were led by the youth let the young leaders of the movement assume control over its ultimate destiny.

Maybe, there is a lesson for SBY in the protests that have rocked Egypt to its core. Listen to your people, listen to their aspirations, after all they are the ones that elected you and they are the ones that you work for. A presidency of unrealised promise might be just the right trigger for a renewed push to "reformasi -- part two".

I guess the reason reform works so slowly, or not at all, is that there is no clear separation from the past. Perhaps the French realised this and that is why the opted for a revolution.

Yes, it is a messy post. But, it is really just a rambling rant ;)

Image courtesy of Dave Granlund.

Anti-Corruption Forces Under Siege -- Indonesia...

I will be wearing my best white outfit in support of this action. I am not sure what difference it will make here in Sydney. Perhaps I can swing around Maroubra way and set up shop out in front of the Indonesian Consulate in my best whites and a sign or something.

It is a sad indictment of Indonesian politics and law enforcement that the Indonesian Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) is being slowly but surely set up for dismantling. The KPK has grown into an organization that has had some considerable success. It would seem that this success is the root cause for the animosity that is now prevalent between the KPK and the police and the Office of the Attorney General.

It was an unfortunate and ultimately untimely coincidence that the Head of the KPK found himself embroiled in a over-heating love triangle (perhaps because of his fancy for the old triangle of love) that ended in the murder of his competitor for the triangle of love.

Probably what is even sadder, but simultaneously more interesting, is that the President who campaigned for a first term on a platform of cleanliness or anti-corruption, and then similarly campaigned for a second term on a similar platform all the while toting the successes of the KPK and the great strides Indonesia has made in this area, has remained out of the fray.

In fact, the presidential spokesperson on legal affairs has stated in unequivocal terms that the president is watching but is not going to become involved. In essence, the president is going to let this thing run its course. Presumably even if it means that the KPK is stripped of its powers and ultimately dismantled.

By my reckoning this would be the perfect time for the president to stand up and be counted. If he truly wants to leave a legacy of reform, good governance, and more importantly clean governance, then this is the issue to stand up on. If for nothing else, the man must stand on his principles, and judging by his campaigning and public statements his principles are that anti-corruption is something that he holds dear. Now, if that is true, now would be a good time to prove it.

The idea that the president is going to stand back from this one makes a mockery of all those who argue that having won 60% of the popular vote in the presidential elections that the president has a mandate to force through change. The man seemingly does not have the testicular fortitude to stand up for the one institution that can cement his legacy as a reformer, as a man dedicated to the people who have suffered for so long at the hands of corrupt officials. No, at this rate the president will be remembered as the president who presided over the dismantling of one of the more prominent successes of the reformasi period.

So, get out your white shirts and stand united with those who support the work of the KPK to date and support the idea that the KPK must continue with the ability to do this work into the future.

Viva KPK!

New Film Law -- Indonesia -- Extended Version...

This was originally written for http://en.hukumonline.com and can be found there. This is a slightly amended version of that piece.

Overview

The bill is not short on controversy and not all stakeholders are happy about the provisions that have been codified into the new law. The bill, as most Indonesian laws do, make grand and bold statements as to the context in which the bill was drafted and debated. In this case, the bill suggests that the reformasi that Indonesia has undergone since 1998 and the fall of the New Order Regime of the former president Soeharto included not only a political reformation but a cultural one too. As part of this cultural reformation the manner in which film is viewed has changed.

Consequently, the previous regulatory framework for film, Law No. 8 of 1992, is no longer fit for purpose and needed to be repealed and replaced with a piece of legislation that reflects the current state of the Indonesian film industry in 2009.

A Step In The Right Direction
The government views the new law as a step in the right direction with respect to the promotion and development of the thriving Indonesian film industry. However, in contrast, some within the thriving Indonesian film industry are openly questioning whether the new law is going to be conducive to the freedom of expression they have enjoyed in recent years to make the films they have wanted to make or whether the new provisions are going to stifle their creative opportunities with respect to making films that satisfy their creative energy. And, any stifling of the creative aspects of film-making would seemingly fly in the face of a recent Presidential Instruction on the Creative Economy.

Principles of the New Law
Indonesian laws generally include simple statements that are then left to either the elucidations of the law to explain or later implementing regulations to provide clarity to the statement with respect to how it is to be interpreted or enforced. The principles are a perfect case in point. Article 2 simply lists nine points which seemingly constitute the principles upon which the law is to be based, and presumably interpreted:
a. An Almighty God;
b. Humanity;
c. Unity in Diversity (bhinneka tunggal ika);
d. Justice;
e. Benefit;
f. Legal certainty;
g. Collectiveness;
h. Partnership; and
i. Policy.

Each of these is explained in detail in the elucidations. For example, the unity in diversity principle would require that films respect the diversity of cultures and ethnicity that is prevalent in Indonesia. Whereas, the definition for benefit is pretty much self-explanatory and requires only that films bring benefit to not only the people but the state as well.

Objectives and Functions
Similarly the objectives and functions of the new law are nothing more than mere statements. Unfortunately, the elucidations provide no further insight other than to say that all of the terms in Articles 3 and 4 are self-explanatory. Among the objectives are: advancing the prosperity of the community, introducing the cultures and diversity of Indonesia to the world, to educate, and to guide honor, among others. Whereas the function of the law is much more simple: cultural, educational, entertaining, informative, drive creative works, and economical.

The Debate
The debate, although seemingly settled, with the passage of the bill through the House of Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat / DPR) on 8 September 2009 may not be the end of the matter as there have been concerns raised with regards to whether or not quorum was reached in the DPR when the bill was passed. However, a more pertinent debate is whether the provisions infringe on the freedom of expression that Indonesians believed they enjoy as part of the series of Constitutional amendments made at the beginning of the reformation period or not.

At the heart of this debate is whether a modern and developing democracy such as Indonesia needs a censorship board or agency to vet film content or whether a film classification board would be sufficient for the purpose of rating films based on their content. Furthermore, the new law stipulates that film scripts must be registered and listed with the minister at least three months prior to any filming being undertaken. Ostensibly, this is to ensure that no two films are being made with the same title or on the same content / issues. Nevertheless, this provision would seemingly provide the power to the minister to vet and then veto any film which the minister deemed to be inappropriate.

Moral Values and Societal Norms
The provisions of the new law require that all films conform to explicit societal mores and norms, and these are set out with respect to what is prohibited in Article 6. Simple, scenes that show violence, gambling, the misuse and abuse of drugs and other addictive substances, pornography, provocation between ethnic groups or races, questions religion or religious practices, encourages criminal activity or lowers the honor of the community are all prohibited.

In essence, a foreign film like Ocean’s Eleven, which deals with gambling, and therefore would seemingly have to fall foul of the censors and be prohibited from screening. Similarly, local Indonesian films such as the martial arts film, Merantau, might also fall foul of Indonesia’s new censorship board as a consequence of the scenes that portray violence, drugs, and perhaps even scenes devoted to issues of human trafficking.

Anti-Monopoly Provisions
The inclusion of anti-monopoly and unfair business competition provisions in the new film law in an interesting development with respect to re-legislating an area already covered in other laws and an area where there is a specific institution, the Commission for the Supervision of Business Competition (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha / KPPU), in place to hear complaints and allegations that companies have, or are, engaged in monopolistic and unfair business practices.

The reality is that those involved in the film industry must now pay particular attention to the manner in which they make their films, and then deal to have them shown in Indonesian cinemas and theatres.

Article 13, for example, states that all those involved in the showing of films must not only show the films of one film-maker or show imported films for more than 50% of the hours they show films in any six-month period. A breach of these provisions is deemed to be the exercise of a monopoly or engaging in unfair business practices.

Article 14 prohibits the entering into an agreement with any film business where that agreement is designed to hinder a competitor. Any agreement that is deemed to hinder is a breach of the provision.

Both Article 13 and 14 are then addressed in Article 80 which sets out the penalties for breach. These penalties include, for the breach of Article 13, a term of imprisonment up to six months or a fine of IDR 100 billion. For a breach of Article 14 (Art. 80(2)) is similarly a term of imprisonment up to six months and a fine of IDR 100 billion.

The question is whether or not the film law needs to define what constitutes a monopoly or an unfair business practice. It is clear that the purpose of the KPPU is to make these determinations within the framework of the prevailing law. The new Film Law does not mention the KPPU by name but Article 80(3) would imply that under the prevailing laws and regulations currently in force in Indonesia that the most likely venue for any dispute regarding monopolistic and unfair business practices is the KPPU.

Nevertheless, the provisions of the film law would seemingly restrict the ability to determine what constitutes a monopoly or an unfair business practice to what is stated in Articles 13 and 14.

Age Classifications
The new law sets out four classifications; all ages, 13+ years of age, 17+ years of age, and 21+ years of age. Films for the 21+ classification can only be screened between the hours of 23.00 and 03.00 and these films cannot be screened in a public place.

Foreign Films and Film-Makers
Foreign film makers wanting to use an Indonesian location must obtain the permission of the minister prior to shooting being commenced. The Elucidations to this provision only state that it is ‘self-explanatory’. Presumably, the permit procedure would require that the foreign film maker submit a script and all other relevant information prior to the minister considering a permit application.

Expansion of the Indonesian Film Industry Through Quotas
The government’s argument for the new law supporting the development and expansion of the Indonesian film industry relies on the rather short Article, Article 32, which stipulates that at least 60% of all the hours that films are shown during any six-month period must be Indonesian films. The question many film makers have is whether they can make a sufficient number of films in light of all the prohibitions they are under with regards to content.

Interestingly, this provision seems very unlikely to guarantee quality local film making, but rather seems more likely to guarantee mass production of films designed to fill a quota. There are legitimate concerns that this particular provision may serve to undermine quality Indonesian film making in the future.

Film Appreciation
Film festivals, or more broadly film appreciation activities, are specifically regulated under the new law. These activities can be undertaken by private individuals, groups or organizations, the central government, or regional governments. Nevertheless, specific provisions on how the relevant articles are to be implemented will become clearer once the associated Ministerial Regulations are issued.

Central Government and Regional Government Authorities – Devolution of Power
The devolution of authorities under the provisions provides that the regional governments can facilitate film production within their respective regional areas. This would include facilitating Indonesian films to satisfy the 60% content provisions noted previously. Regional governments would also be required to facilitate the production of documentary films on their respective cultural uniqueness and other regionally specific issues.

Facilities and Incentives
The central government has responsibility with respect to facilitating film-making through the provision of tax and other kinds of duty and excise exemptions and reductions.

Funding
The funding of films is set out as a joint responsibility that would permit the central and regional governments to contribute. However, it is expected that any funds that are to be provided by government would be best administered through the creation of a film corporation which is tasked specifically with managing these funds. Unfortunately, the new law and the elucidations do not provide any additional input on this issue beyond funding being a joint responsibility.

Sanctions
The new law sets out both administrative and criminal sanctions. The administrative sanctions are the standard written warnings, fines, temporary suspension of activities, and the revocation of licenses and permits. The criminal sanctions provide for terms of imprisonment of between 6 months and 2 years, and fines of between IDR 10 billion and IDR 100 billion.

For example, the screening of a film that has not been passed by the censorship board is liable for criminal penalties that include a term of imprisonment of up to two years or a fine of IDR 10 billion.

Where the breach is committed by a corporation, then the penalties are increased by one third.

Censorship Board
Finally, the current censorship board is to remain in place until such time as the new censorship board is installed. The new censorship board must be installed no later than 18 months from the date of enactment of the new law.

The Censorship Board is classified as an independent body that reports to the president through the relevant minister. The primary job of the Censorship Board is obvious, to censor films and film trailers. Every film that is to be shown in Indonesia must have successfully negotiated the Censorship Board.

The Censorship Board is to do its work based on the provisions of Articles 6 and 7. Interestingly, the Censorship Board, aside from just making a determination as to whether a film or a film trailer meets the exacting standards of Articles 6 and 7, can also make recommendations for the imposition of sanctions on film-makers who breach the provisions of the law.

The Censorship Board is to comprise of 17 individuals of which 12 are to be nominated by the community and 5 are to be nominated by the government. Each member is to be appointed to a four-year term and may be re-appointed for a further four-year term. Appointment is by the president in consultation with the DPR.

Conclusion
The new law is not without some controversy. The majority of this controversy has centered on whether the new law will impinge upon, and restrict, creative film-making. It is clear that the new law holds this potential. Nevertheless, as with any law the proof of the pudding is going to be enforcement. If the government is committed to enforcing the law as it has passed then there would appear to be very little wriggle room for film makers.

Films are required, under the new law, to meet some very exacting standards and as such any deliberate breach of the provisions to make a point would be a brave move on the part of film makers. This is particularly so when a script must be registered with the minister before production can start and then the film also has to negotiate a Censorship Board rather than a classification board. This is even more onerous when film makers realize that the Censorship Board has the power to recommend sanctions on film makers determined to have breached the prevailing provisions in Articles 6 and 7.

Finally, however, the entry into law appears a mere formality with the president expected to sign the bill.

Transmigration in Indonesia -- Amended Regulatory Framework...

This is something that was written for en.hukumonline.com. The original can be found here.

The era of “reformasi” was the spur for many changes in Indonesia, and this includes the drive to amend the 1945 Constitution of the Republic. There have been four amendments to date. These amendments were enacted in the period between 1999 and 2002. Furthermore, the amendments have since required that other legislation (laws and regulations) also be amended to ensure that those pieces of legislation comply with the amended Constitution.

The previous law on Transmigration Law No. 15 of 1997, has been amended in order to comply with the Constitution as it now stands, particularly with respect to matters of regional autonomy.

The Amendment Bill on Law No. 15 of 1997 was passed by the House of Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat / DPR) and is currently awaiting the signature of the president before it can be promulgated as law. The amendments focus almost exclusively on the decentralization of certain transmigration related authorities from the Central Government to the relevant Regional Governments. The amendments also endeavor to create a more conducive transmigration sector; conducive to investment.

Articles 7 – 9, 13 – 15, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, and 35 have been amended, as has the Title of Chapter VII. Additionally, Chapter IX and Article 34 have been repealed. Finally, three Chapters have been inserted and replace Chapter XI, specifically: Chapters XA, XB, and XC.

One of the most notable changes is that the authority to: determine, establish, and develop areas for transmigration has devolved to the relevant regional governments. This is notable for two reasons; this places greater administrative control on the regional governments themselves to be pro-active in providing support for the transmigration program and accountability.

In effect, the amendments would provide the opportunity to enterprising regional governments to either go it alone or enter into private / public partnerships to develop and exploit their regional potential by enhancing opportunities for transmigration. Whether this eventuates remains to be seen. Nevertheless, the potential for such a development is clearly available under the provisions of the amended law.

The new law provides for sanctions to be imposed on anyone who breaches the prevailing provisions. This is irrespective of whether the breach is conducted by a government official, a business entity, a transmigrant, or some other individual or group. Generally, the sanctions provide for:

• Oral / written warnings;
• Cancellation of licenses (for business entities), transmigrant status (for transmigrants), and / or the Minister of Labor and Transmigration (for groups of people); and
• Criminal sanctions. Not all of the amendments are significant in terms of size.

For example, the provisions of Chapter VIII have been amended to merely change one word; “guidance” (pembinaan) to “development” (pengembangan). Nevertheless, there is seemingly a significant difference in terms of what is required between providing guidance and facilitating development. Yet, the amendment is just one word.

The bill comes into immediate force once it is promulgated. Enactment requires the signature of the President. If the President fails to sign the bill into law then the bill will self-enact after 30 days pursuant to the 1945 Constitution.

Revolution vs. Reformasi

I was chatting to someone recently about the pros and cons of revolution and reform (or in the Indonesian context - reformasi). The point of this musing is in fact it is not a regurgitation of the substance of that discussion, but rather to leave this quote:

Revolutions have never lightened the burden of tyranny: they have only shifted it to another shoulder.

-- George Bernard Shaw

FPI -- Thugs in Robes

The Islamic Defenders Front (Front Pembela Islam / FPI) has been beefing up its credentials as thugs earlier this afternoon. In so doing it is providing the government all the necessary proof and evidence that this organization needs to be disbanded. The fact that it has been allowed to exist for as long as it has and be allowed to commit a long list of breaches of the law should be an embarrassment to a government that is trying to sell Indonesia as a peaceful and tolerant destination to spend your hard earned cash. Not only is it an embarrassment it is a joke and makes a mockery of not only Pancasila (today is the commemoration of the Five Principles philosophy as the State ideology).

It is being reported that earlier today at about 14.30 the National Alliance for the Freedom of Faith and Religion (Aliansi Kebangsaan untuk Kebebasan Berkeyakinan dan Beragama / AKKBB) was set upon by a couple of hundred thugs from the FPI at Monas (Soekarno's phallic ode to himself and his manhood -- photo by someone named Murbiyanto) close to the Gambir railway station. There are seven people seriously injured including Syafii Anwar (Director of ICIP) and Muhammad Guntur Romli (an activist from Liberal Islam Network) both of whom are being treated in RSPAD Gatot Subroto. The list of injured also includes Ahmad Suaedy (the Executive Director of the Wahid Institute).

The AKKBB were holding a rally at Monas to mark the birth of Pancasila on 1 June. This was to be marked with a joint prayer in recognition of diversity and tolerance among other things.

It is high time the government acted against thugs and others seeking to impose their will through violence and intimidation. Any failure to act is nothing more than condoning the violence and condoning the methods used to suppress free expression. If Indonesia is truly a tolerant country then now is the time for the government to step up to the plate by clearly and unequivocally stating that this thuggery perpetrated by the FPI or their supporters will not be tolerated and then prosecute anyone breaking the law to the full extent possible under the prevailing laws.

Unfortunately, I am not an optimist on this front. Indonesia has so much potential and there are so many of us who hope for her to achieve that potential. Yet, the government's record to date has been woeful. We have just commemorated 10 years of reformation but the truth be told, reformasi will never be fully achieved until their is justice. Justice not only for all of the victims of the New Order's excesses but for more recent excesses as well such as the killings at Trisakti / Semanggi and the violence of May 1998 and more recently the mud flow disaster at Sidoarjo.

I live with hope because for where there is no hope there is only death!

Merdeka!!!